Supervisor Scott Wiener on Thursday withdrew legislation he had proposed to have city departments conduct an impartial analysis of the most contentions measure on the June ballot – a proposal designed to limit waterfront development.

Instead, Mayor Ed Lee will simply issue an executive order directing the departments to conduct the analysis.

The move avoids a potentially ugly showdown at the board about getting the information, considering that the mere question of which committee – Rules or Land Use – should even consider the matter prompted a lengthy debate last month.

The stakes are high for Proposition B, which make voter approval a requirement for any new building on Port of San Francisco property to exceed current height limits.

The city’s progressive left, fresh off a victory in November when a luxury condo development near the Ferry Building was soundly defeated in a low-turnout election, sees restricting tall buildings along the waterfront as an issue with the momentum to bolster their candidates and weaken business-friendly Lee.

Developers, urban planners and smart-growth advocates say the measure will stifle construction during a housing crunch and layer extra expense and uncertainty onto at least three major proposals in the works for years: the Golden State Warriors’ arena complex at Piers 30-32, the Giants’ plan for a new urban village on its main parking lot, and the redevelopment of the industrial Pier 70 area.

A port analysis of the measure projected it would cost that department almost $8.5 billion in lost revenue and mean $124 million in fees to build affordable housing would be delayed, reduced or foregone.

Backers of the measure, an alliance of limited-growth and progressive activists that include the local chapter of the Sierra Club, contend Wiener’s request for an analysis of the measure from departments like the Municipal Transportation Agency and the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development was not impartial but designed to tilt the argument against them.

Wiener says he wants voters to have the facts, just like Assemblyman Tom Ammiano did in 1996 when he requested two different analyses on the fiscal and transportation impacts of the Giant’s proposed ballpark.

Supervisor David Campos, a progressive running to succeed the termed out Ammiano who stands to benefit from a Prop. B victory, questioned whether the analysis would be fair, because the idea was pushed by opponents of the measure.

“I think the same level of input should be provided to each side,” Campos said Thursday of the questions departments are being asked to answer.

Afterward, Wiener noted that when he introduced his proposal in February, he said he welcomed additional questions from Prop. B’s backers.

“I invited them to send me questions, and they didn’t,” Wiener said.

After viewing a series of questions the “yes” side supplied after Thursday’s hearing, including how many of the units built above the current height limit are going to be for affordable housing and how many for luxury housing, Wiener replied: “I would have gladly accepted those questions had they sent them to me. But they didn’t because this was more about political gamesmanship on their part.”

Lee’s office, though, isn’t going to get caught up in the question game, saying it’s just going to direct departments to provide “an impartial and through analysis.”